13 Ways to Hide the Bodies
A handy guide for bureaucrats in spinning excess mortality.
1. Pretend It's the Ageing of the Population or Population Increase
Explain that as the population ages, people are more susceptible to dying, naturally leading to higher death numbers. Even though the pandemic has only technically lasted for five years, meaning the population would have theoretically only aged in the same way, people love a simple answer and will latch onto something that is obvious and well-known. You can bolster this argument by also saying that as the total population increases, more deaths are expected. Even though Australia often imports younger, healthier individuals, people won’t join those dots and you can tie the two together as a simple factor of demographics. If you get called out on it, don’t say it’s the only cause of excess mortality, just say it’s a “contributing cause” and move to point # 2 in this guide:
2. Pretend it's Just Elderly Excess Mortality
Emphasise that the increased deaths are predominantly among the elderly, who are closer to their natural life expectancy. Present this rise as part of the natural ageing process, suggesting that it is not unusual for mortality rates to increase in this demographic. By focusing on elderly deaths, you can imply that these numbers do not indicate a broader public health crisis but rather an expected demographic trend, and unfortunately, frail, older people are just that much more likely to die during a pandemic. Even though there may be excess mortality, in younger cohorts which probably should prompt immediate investigation, remember to use some key words to shift the narrative with some important modality like “vast majority”. Even consider putting it in bold to really stress the important takeaway message:
3. Pretend it's the Outcome of Delays in Routine Care
Attribute the excess deaths to delays in routine medical care during the pandemic. Explain that the healthcare system’s focus on COVID-19 led to a backlog in treating other health issues, resulting in higher mortality. This shifts the blame to the indirect effects of the pandemic rather than any direct policy or intervention-related causes. Emphasise the strain on healthcare services to justify the delays and their subsequent impact on mortality. Yes, we know this will prompt some narky journalists to mention the impact of lockdowns being astronomically greater than the presumed reduction in COVID-19 deaths from lockdowns, but you can simply reduce this to a simple straw man argument response like “I suppose you just wanted us to ‘let it rip’ and kill grandmas right?”. Remember, keeping it simple is important. The people need simple messages, keep the focus on COVID-19 and how it worked back then:
4. Pretend it's the Outcome from Relaxing NPIs
Claim that the spike in deaths is due to the relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) like masking and social distancing. Argue that these measures were crucial in controlling the spread of the virus and that lifting them has led to increased mortality. This narrative suggests that personal behaviour and policy shifts towards normalcy are responsible for the rise in deaths, implying that maintaining restrictions could have prevented it:
**Optional**
To really emphasise this point, consider funding some “research” from a credible authority to demonstrate the real-world effectiveness of wearing masks. It could be as simple as getting some “academics” to get some photos from the local newspaper to see if people have been wearing masks. You could then link a rise in excess mortality to the lack of this basic protection against COVID-19:
5. Pretend it's the Outcome from Being Behind on Our Vaccinations
Imply that the solution to excess mortality is staying up to date with vaccinations. Argue that not keeping current with booster shots has caused the spike in deaths, despite high overall vaccination rates. This approach maintains the focus on vaccinations as the primary means of control, sidestepping questions about their long-term effectiveness or potential side effects. Reinforce the importance of booster campaigns to mitigate this issue. We know people are starting to catch on and are experiencing “vaccine fatigue” (or maybe even just propaganda fatigue?) so get a study out there in a reputable journal. The best part about this is that when the alt-media and their anti-vax counterparts Rennick, Roberts, Antic, Canavan, Hanson, Babet and Co. start hammering away in Parliament or at Estimates, you can deflect to “The New Study”:
6. Pretend it's the Outcome from Opening Our Borders
Blame the reopening of borders for the rise in deaths. Suggest that increased travel and movement have introduced new risks and variants, contributing to the mortality spike. This shifts attention to external factors and portrays the issue as a consequence of necessary economic and social policies rather than a failure of internal health measures. Unfortunately, this will only work when you’re trying to explain the increase in excess mortality in 2022 for Australia. Let people join the dots between COVID-19 deaths and excess mortality without having them think about who first arrived in Australia when the borders opened. Remember, it was “fully vaccinated” travellers who were first allowed into the country, so tread with caution using this one!
7. Pretend it's All Just COVID-19 That's Causing It
Deflect questions about the main causes of excess mortality and stress that it is still all about COVID-19. Don’t worry that everyone took a “vaccine” to prevent this outcome. Remind the people that the new definition of “vaccine” allows their effectiveness to “wane” and that repeated shots are the norm now. With that in mind, people will automatically accept that excess mortality is connected with COVID-19. Keep the messaging about “waves” and “infections” going. Emphasise that the virus continues to impact health, leading to ongoing rises in death rates. This approach avoids scrutiny of other potential causes by keeping COVID-19 as the primary explanation. Reinforce the idea that the pandemic's effects are far-reaching and still present, necessitating continued vigilance and health measures. This approach works well even when people realise that a large component of Australia’s persisting excess mortality are from non-COVID-19 causes, because you can remind everyone that COVID-19 placed such an undue stress on our health facilities that it was an inevitable outcome:
8. Pretend Non-COVID-19 Deaths Follow COVID-19 Deaths
Connect non-COVID-19 deaths to earlier COVID-19 fatalities by arguing that the virus weakened the population, leading to increased vulnerability to other causes of death. Present this as a cascading effect where initial COVID-19 infections have long-term health consequences that indirectly contribute to higher mortality. This narrative helps to maintain the focus on the lasting impact of the pandemic rather than exploring other potential causes. This is likely to be a highly effective strategy if you can link the main causes of excess mortality to the effects of COVID-19 infection: heart attacks, myocarditis, pericarditis, strokes, cancer, diabetes, dementia etc. Maybe call it a “subsequent mortality risk” to simplify it.
9. Pretend it's Mortality Displacement, Even If it Has Been Ongoing for the Past Several Years
Use the concept of mortality displacement to suggest that deaths were simply delayed slightly. Even if this displacement has been happening for years, frame it as a natural adjustment in mortality timing rather than an ongoing crisis. Focus on 2020, call it a “Low Mortality Year” or something like that. You can say that because we were really good at wearing masks, or locking down society and social distancing that we prevented a bunch of deaths in those cohorts of the population who really should have died in 2020. Given that they didn’t actually die in 2020, and were topped off in 2021-2023, they are artificially increasing death numbers in those years:
10. Create a Multi-Year Average, Incorporating Lower Mortality Years
Blend high mortality years with lower ones to smooth out spikes. Use long-term averages to present a more stable picture of mortality rates, making alarming death tolls less noticeable. This statistical approach helps to dilute the impact of recent increases by spreading them across a broader timeframe. Emphasise the value of looking at trends over multiple years to provide context and reduce panic. This will be particularly useful for 2022 and 2023, where excess mortality was particularly high in Australia:
12. Inflate the “Expected” Deaths to Reduce the Excess, Pretending it’s the “New Normal”
Adjust what is considered “normal” mortality upwards by redefining the expected death count. This method involves recalculating the baseline for expected deaths, making it easier to normalise higher mortality rates. By establishing new thresholds, you can downplay the significance of excess deaths, presenting them as within the bounds of expected variations. This redefinition can be accompanied by public messaging that frames the increased numbers as a new standard in a post-pandemic world. Simply accept that excess mortality is now a permanent feature of our world. Present this higher rate of deaths as the “New Normal” that society must adapt to. This fatalistic approach suggests that people should stop questioning and start accepting these rates as part of everyday life, stifling dissent and preventing serious investigation into the root causes of ongoing mortality spikes.
13. Pretend the COVID-19 “Vaccines” Have Had Nothing to do with it
There are just so many options for this one it’s hard to pick where to start.
“The vaccines have saved millions of lives”;
“The benefits outweigh the risks”
“They have been administered billions of times, we’d know if there was a safety signal”;
“There are known risks, but they’re so rare”;
“Myocarditis cases are mostly mild and transient”;
“Correlation does not imply causation”;
“There is no credible evidence vaccines have played any significant role in excess mortality”;
“There is no available evidence vaccines are a significant contributing factor”;
“Safe and effective”;
“Anti-vaxxer!”;
“Trust the Science”;
Summary
By this point you will have delayed any substantive inquiry for long enough for you to transition to a senior-executive role in the private sector or simply retire, collecting a handsome taxpayer-funded pension for the rest of your days.
Imagine if the Government had taken to criminally covering up, gaslighting, denying, and obfuscating the harms of Thalidomide, in the same way they've covered up, gaslit, denied, and obfuscated the harms of the forced-experiment-gone-wrong (that they're now trying to furiously distance themselves from, so they don't get sued into oblivion)?
“Thalidomide has saved millions of lives”.
“The benefits outweigh the risks”.
“We've administered billions of doses of Thalidomide, we’d know if there was a safety signal”.
“There are known risks, like being born with no arms or legs, but they’re rare”.
“No arms or no legs is mostly mild and transient”.
“Correlation does not imply causation”.
“There is no credible evidence Thalidomide has played any significant role in excess birth deformities”.
“There is no available evidence Thalidomide is a significant contributing factor”.
“Of COURSE Thalidomide is Safe and Effective”.
“What are you - a Baby Hater!”.
“Trust the Science. We're the experts, you're not a doctor, and this is for your baby's safety, you big ignoramus”.
This is no less apparent, obvious, and obscene.
Fantastic analysis. Thanks so much.